PDA

View Full Version : Michael Pineda to the Reds?



jojo
07-01-2011, 12:17 AM
Dave Cameron thinks the Reds would be good trade partners.....

http://mynorthwest.com/?nid=422&sid=506991


What do you think?

cinreds21
07-01-2011, 12:19 AM
Why on earth would the M's trade him and not Felix? Come on.

fearofpopvol1
07-01-2011, 12:21 AM
I love Pineda...but Alonso, Grandal, Frazier and Wood for him seems like an awfully big price to pay.

Will M
07-01-2011, 12:22 AM
The deal suggested by the writer is Yasmani Grandal, Yonder Alonso, Todd Frazier & Travis Wood. For a guy who might have to be shut down in September due to having pitched a lot of innings as a 22 year old.
Also what if he is a 'one year wonder'? I would not do this.

cinreds21
07-01-2011, 12:24 AM
Please don't believe every speculated and erroneous trade you read. Come on guys. A team doesn't trade four prospects for a guy who is just losing his prospect status.

The Voice of IH
07-01-2011, 12:24 AM
If they can work a deal and take either Alonso or Grandal off the trade and make it a Fraizer, Wood, ____ and a PTBNL, I would be good with it.

jojo
07-01-2011, 12:24 AM
The deal suggested by the writer is Yasmani Grandal, Yonder Alonso, Todd Frazier & Travis Wood. For a guy who might have to be shut down in September due to having pitched a lot of innings as a 22 year old.
Also what if he is a 'one year wonder'? I would not do this.

There is really no reason to think Pineda is a 'one year wonder'.

cinreds21
07-01-2011, 12:25 AM
There is really no reason to think Pineda is a 'one year wonder'.

And that's the reason why they shouldn't trade him. Wood is going to be a three at best. Piņeda is a future ace, or two at worse. Yonder could be a DH for them, and the jury is still out on Frazier as to if he'll be an every day player or not.

jojo
07-01-2011, 12:30 AM
Please don't believe every speculated and erroneous trade you read. Come on guys. A team doesn't trade four prospects for a guy who is just losing his prospect status.

Cameron is making an argument based upon based upon a philosophy of risk management and usage of resources. There's a lot of meat in his argument. You should read it.

cinreds21
07-01-2011, 12:33 AM
Cameron is making an argument based upon based upon a philosophy of risk management and usage of resources. There's a lot of meat in his argument. You should read it.

Ok. I just read it entirely. I agree with his ideas, but I still think that's too much. I'd do Yas, Yonder and Volquez but not those four. That's too much, I think.

jojo
07-01-2011, 12:36 AM
Ok. I just read it entirely. I agree with his ideas, but I still think that's too much. I'd do Yas, Yonder and Volquez but not those four. That's too much, I think.

I think it's an interesting idea that is thinking out of the box (and not likely to happen). There's probably not a right or wrong answer....just one that is more comfortable for each individual.

cinreds21
07-01-2011, 12:37 AM
I think it's an interesting idea that is thinking out of the box (and not likely to happen). There's probably not a right or wrong answer....just one that is more comfortable for each individual.

I agree.

OnBaseMachine
07-01-2011, 12:40 AM
Pineda is a flat out stud. IMO, there is no way the Mariners trade him.

Will M
07-01-2011, 12:43 AM
There is really no reason to think Pineda is a 'one year wonder'.

Right in the article the writer mentions "I know that teams are loath to trade away stud young pitchers, but in reality, they are some of the riskiest assets in baseball. If you look at the best pitching performances from players at age 22 over the last decade, you see names like Mark Prior, Scott Kazmir, Rich Harden, Dontrelle Willis, Oliver Perez, and Anibal Sanchez. All of these guys experienced significant problems with injuries and/or a loss of velocity after bursting onto the scene as dominant young hurlers. Even looking at last year's phenoms, we see guys like Stephen Strasburg, Mat Latos, and Brett Anderson -- all of whom have lost real value from where they were last summer."

corkedbat
07-01-2011, 12:45 AM
Pineda is a flat out stud. IMO, there is no way the Mariners trade him.

I agree OBM. I said in another thread that I wouldn't deal Mes or Grandal for a rental on Reyes. If I were to include one it would be more along the lines of someone Pineda (not the full package listed, but I would do three). I'm like you though, just because a columnist thinks it up doesn't mean the M's would follow through.

cinreds21
07-01-2011, 12:46 AM
Mex? That's a first lol

Ron Madden
07-01-2011, 04:23 AM
I think it's an interesting idea that is thinking out of the box (and not likely to happen). There's probably not a right or wrong answer....just one that is more comfortable for each individual.



Very interesting, I could very easily be swayed into making this deal.

I agree it's not likely to happen but is food for thought.

mth123
07-01-2011, 04:23 AM
Grandal, Frazier, Alonso and Wood for Pineda? Yes please.

Wood is the only one who gives me pause. I like Wood very much as a mid rotation stalwart down the line (probably as soon as after the All Star Break). Alonso is a blocked 1B and at that position may be nothing more than just another guy. Grandal is a nice prospect but he's in AA and his hitting prowess in his prosfessional debut comes from an environment which makes it all come with a giant grain of salt. Frazier is probably a major league super sub who may be able to become a run of the mill starter at 3B one day. He could be really valuable to a team as a super sub and keeping him would be fine because he moves around enough to keep him from being "blocked" but he's not the building block Pineda will be. Given the Reds current situation, I'd rather sub Heisey in the deal, but wouldn't squawk too much either way.

I think its a great idea from the Reds standpoint. It would never happen though and I wouldn't take that package if I was running the M's.

fearofpopvol1
07-01-2011, 04:30 AM
Grandal, Frazier, Alonso and Wood for Pineda? Yes please.

Wood is the only one who gives me pause. I like Wood very much as a mid rotation stalwart down the line (probably as soon as after the All Star Break). Alonso is a blocked 1B and at that position may be nothing more than just another guy. Grandal is a nice prospect but he's in AA and his hitting prowess in his prosfessional debut comes from an environment which makes it all come with a giant grain of salt. Frazier is a probably a major league super sub who may be able to become a run of the mill starter at 3B one day. He could be really valuable to a team as a super sub and keeping him would be fine because he moves around enough to keep him from being "blocked" but he's not the building block Pineda will be.

I think its a great idea from the Reds standpoint. It would never happen though and I wouldn't take that package if I was running the M's.

This is my sentiment too. Wood just tips this over the edge for me. If they were willing to take Volquez instead or another player, I would be totally fine with this deal.

mth123
07-01-2011, 04:40 AM
This is my sentiment too. Wood just tips this over the edge for me. If they were willing to take Volquez instead or another player, I would be totally fine with this deal.

Wood gives me pause, but he wouldn't make me say no. Pineda is an impact arm who singlehandedly could change a race or a post season series. The Reds don't have one of those. Mid-Rotation starters aren't exactly falling off trees, but can be had fairly easily if your willing to pay a bit of cash or deal a kid or two to a rebuilding team.

Will makes a valid point about Pineda's innings situation and this would be more of a deal for the future than for 2011. If the Reds were a rebuilding team, I'd still make that deal to get Pineda as the foundation to build my rotation around.

edabbs44
07-01-2011, 07:18 AM
I would entertain one of Grandal or Alonso, along with the others. Cameron makes some good points but kind of contradicts himself when asking for such a large return on something as risky as young pitching.

I'd love to have the guy, but that's an organization draining trade for a guy who
may not be a huge help down the stretch in 2011.

757690
07-01-2011, 07:38 AM
He is a flyball pitcher pitching in Safco in his first year in the bigs. I think it's way too early to consider him a true #1 starter yet.

I would have no problem trading what Cameron suggested, or something close to it, for a true #1, but I don't think Pineda is any more sure of a #1 starter than Cueto is.

lollipopcurve
07-01-2011, 08:33 AM
Way too early to buy into Pineda as that significant an upgrade over Wood. Is really so much better than Wood that you sacrifice Grandal, Alonso and Frazier?

I don't think so, and it's not even close, really.

bucksfan2
07-01-2011, 09:06 AM
No.

This is the type of trade that happens in the off season. I don't see the value in acquiring Pineda when he will be shut down come September. This move may make the Reds better in the future, but I don't know if in 2011 its an upgrade over what Wood could provide. That would be an enormous price to pay for a guy who will not be able to pitch in the post season. Now if this were December then I would be all ears.

Ghosts of 1990
07-01-2011, 10:29 AM
Not going anywhere. No way.

CySeymour
07-01-2011, 10:42 AM
I really can't seen the M's entertaining this trade, especially when the player they would be dealing away is their prospective ace once Felix is dealt. But if Seattle approaches Walt with dealing the Reds Pineda, he definately needs to do more then just kick the tires on it.

Benihana
07-01-2011, 10:43 AM
Wow, lots of good discussion items here.

First, I agree with bucksfan that this is the type of trade that should happen in the offseason, not in-season, as it does nothing for either team in 2011.

Second, I agree with lollipop about not sacrificing Alonso, Grandal, and Frazier for the potential difference between Pineda and Wood.

That said, I would do this deal if you sub in any other minor league pitcher for Wood. I would consider the deal if you sub in Volquez or even Bailey (due to health risks) for Wood, but still might hesitate. I would not do the current proposed deal that includes Wood. Too much risk for one young pitcher with injury risk. I don't have any qualms about dealing Alonso, Grandal and Frazier in the right deal as I think they are all easily replaceable. Including Wood along with those guys is what concerns me in this particular deal.

That said, while fun to talk about, trades like this aren't particularly realistic.

Benihana
07-01-2011, 10:49 AM
To be clear, of course I would trade Wood along with 1 or 2 others for Pineda. Just not Wood along with all three of those guys. Wood, Alonso and Frazier I would do in a heartbeat.

Scrap Irony
07-01-2011, 10:58 AM
I'd do that deal for Felix Hernandez, but not Pineda.

Athough I may kick myself later for not doing it now.

Pitching's just too uncertain, especially with low inning guys like Pineda.

Sure would like to have him though.

redsmetz
07-01-2011, 11:02 AM
Just as an aside, keep in mind that Grandal would have to be in such a trade now as a PTBNL since he didn't sign until August.

HokieRed
07-01-2011, 11:53 AM
Way too early to buy into Pineda as that significant an upgrade over Wood. Is really so much better than Wood that you sacrifice Grandal, Alonso and Frazier?

I don't think so, and it's not even close, really.

Ditto. I much enjoyed the article but notice that the risk analysis is all done from the side of the M's, which means we should be doing this from the reverse side, as lollipop has done. I'd also recall our last adventure in trading for a guy with TOR potential; Texas, it seems to me, did a calculation along the lines of what Cameron is suggesting--a lot can happen to really good looking young arms--and, IMHO, took us to the cleaners in the process.

PuffyPig
07-01-2011, 03:25 PM
If they can work a deal and take either Alonso or Grandal off the trade and make it a Fraizer, Wood, ____ and a PTBNL, I would be good with it.

So, you "are good" with a deal in which you don't know the names of the two of the 4 players involved?

If ________ and PTBNL happen to be Votto and Bruce, are you so happy?

If you are going to make a trade proposal, I suggest you actually name names.

camisadelgolf
07-01-2011, 03:44 PM
http://chinadigitaltimes.net/wp-content/uploads/mt-old/images/_Vietnam_Vi-tinh_2006_04_3B9E8999_China_internet_police.jpg

crazybob60
07-01-2011, 04:20 PM
I would do this deal and not look back.

Alonso is forced to play away from his natural position of 1B and has yet to prove himself in the majors. We can hope that he hits in the majors like he has in the minors.

Frazier is probably going to be nothing but a super sub anyway. He could be something special, but the lack of a true position hurts him. He has yet to prove himself in the majors yet either.

Grandal is a good catcher, but he may be facing the same situation here shortly that Alonso has with Votto in that he is being held back because of someone there ahead of him (Mesoraco). And he has yet to prove himself in the majors yet either.

Wood has some majors experience but has fallen on some rather rocky road here yet. He will get better, but at best, I don't see him being anymore than a number 3 guy.

So we are trading away a potential number 3 guy and 3 prospects who haven't proved themselves in the majors yet and still have a bunch of 'ifs' surrounding them and basically all 3 of them have position questions surrounding them as well (either where they will play or people already ahead of them in the depth chart). And we are getting back the potential AL ROY and a possible TOR guy. Someone we have been clamoring around here for for like forever.

Where do I sign?

CTA513
07-01-2011, 04:27 PM
Ditto. I much enjoyed the article but notice that the risk analysis is all done from the side of the M's, which means we should be doing this from the reverse side, as lollipop has done. I'd also recall our last adventure in trading for a guy with TOR potential; Texas, it seems to me, did a calculation along the lines of what Cameron is suggesting--a lot can happen to really good looking young arms--and, IMHO, took us to the cleaners in the process.

Pineda shouldn't be lumped in with Volquez unless he starts walking about double what he currently does per 9 innings.

HokieRed
07-01-2011, 06:34 PM
Pineda shouldn't be lumped in with Volquez unless he starts walking about double what he currently does per 9 innings.

The principle's the same. A lot can happen with young pitchers. I'd love to have Pineda, but the Cameron piece does everything to show it would be a good idea for the M's to trade him and nothing at all to show it would be a good idea for another team to acquire him.

mth123
07-01-2011, 06:40 PM
Pineda shouldn't be lumped in with Volquez unless he starts walking about double what he currently does per 9 innings.

And the guy the Reds traded probably had more risk associated with him than any other player in history. He's already fallen off the wagon at least one time that has been made public and has missed tons of times with injuries. I liked when WK got Josh and I was all for throwing him right into the major league fire that spring. But he'll always be a struggling addict no matter how long he stays clean and I'd have flipped him in a deal for Volquez every time.

I'm really shocked that Hamilton is still in organized baseball.

alloverjr
07-01-2011, 06:59 PM
http://chinadigitaltimes.net/wp-content/uploads/mt-old/images/_Vietnam_Vi-tinh_2006_04_3B9E8999_China_internet_police.jpg


No kidding!

mth123
07-01-2011, 07:09 PM
I would do this deal and not look back.

Alonso is forced to play away from his natural position of 1B and has yet to prove himself in the majors. We can hope that he hits in the majors like he has in the minors.

Frazier is probably going to be nothing but a super sub anyway. He could be something special, but the lack of a true position hurts him. He has yet to prove himself in the majors yet either.

Grandal is a good catcher, but he may be facing the same situation here shortly that Alonso has with Votto in that he is being held back because of someone there ahead of him (Mesoraco). And he has yet to prove himself in the majors yet either.

Wood has some majors experience but has fallen on some rather rocky road here yet. He will get better, but at best, I don't see him being anymore than a number 3 guy.

So we are trading away a potential number 3 guy and 3 prospects who haven't proved themselves in the majors yet and still have a bunch of 'ifs' surrounding them and basically all 3 of them have position questions surrounding them as well (either where they will play or people already ahead of them in the depth chart). And we are getting back the potential AL ROY and a possible TOR guy. Someone we have been clamoring around here for for like forever.

Where do I sign?

:thumbup:

jojo
07-01-2011, 07:50 PM
The principle's the same. A lot can happen with young pitchers. I'd love to have Pineda, but the Cameron piece does everything to show it would be a good idea for the M's to trade him and nothing at all to show it would be a good idea for another team to acquire him.

That's not really true. He argues that the Ms should trade Pineda to essentially dilute Pineda's risk over several players who are somewhat less risk but aren't in the majors. The Ms need an infusion of position player prospects at certain positions and are in rebuilding mode. The Reds need a high impact arm for a playoff run and would be in a position to assume the long term risk for the addition of a high impact arm at league minimum and 6 years of control in exchange for surplus players in their org.

In other words, it's the long term risk of Pineda that makes the deal a potential fit for both teams.

HokieRed
07-01-2011, 08:42 PM
That's not really true. He argues that the Ms should trade Pineda to essentially dilute Pineda's risk over several players who are somewhat less risk but aren't in the majors. The Ms need an infusion of position player prospects at certain positions and are in rebuilding mode. The Reds need a high impact arm for a playoff run and would be in a position to assume the long term risk for the addition of a high impact arm at league minimum and 6 years of control in exchange for surplus players in their org.

In other words, it's the long term risk of Pineda that makes the deal a potential fit for both teams.

Respectfully disagree, Jojo, in that you have defined what the Reds need in a way that some others would not and that the piece really does not either. What the piece argues, as your rightly characterize it, is that the risk analysis points to the wisdom of the M's making an out-of-the-box move in trading Pineda for several, less risky assets. And I agree with that logic wholeheartedly. If I were the M's GM, I'd be seriously thinking about this. But for the Reds to do a deal involving, let's say, Alonso, Grandal, Wood, and Frazier--as some have advocated--is to take on a great deal of risk and to concentrate that risk on Pineda, which I think is a bad idea. The risks are asymmetrical. What most posters have ignored, too, is what could be acquired in other deals using Alonso, Grandal, Wood, and Frazier. Even if in some ways some of those players are "blocked" in our organization--a proposition I think is far from obvious in itself--it still would be possible to trade them for a variety of other assets. Trading those four players for Pineda would be to concentrate a lot of risk, on our side, on one player, a young pitcher at that and there is no more risky asset in baseball. That's where the Volquez analogy applies, IMO, though I recognize that what the
Reds did there is to trade a risky asset of our own, Hamilton. (Still I detested the trade then and still do.) The Cameron piece is superb in suggesting why the M's should consider trading Pineda; less so in suggesting why another team should take on the substantial risk involved in buying a young pitcher at what might be a possible top and doing so by trading several sure major leaguers--which Alonso, Grandal, Wood, and Frazier, whatever their limitations, undoubtedly are.

mth123
07-01-2011, 09:53 PM
This is getting too deep for my taste. The Reds need a high caliber arm and the deal proposed gets him for essentially spare parts that have no place to play in Cincy. Nobody wants to deal the spare parts (who don't really help the Reds win from AAA) for an immediate impact guy who won't be around long, but if you aren't willing to pull the trigger on a TOR arm with 6 years of control, what would we keep these guys around for? Votto and Mesoraco make two of these guys excess baggage and the third position player would come up and play a similar role, with likely similar offensive and defensive production, as what the team was able to find on the scrap heap by signing Miguel Cairo. I'd like to keep Wood, but the upgrade to a guy like Pineda doesn't really come along all that often.

If not a guy like Pineda then do what with them? Being stacked at AAA isn't exactly the goal here.

757690
07-01-2011, 10:08 PM
This is getting too deep for my taste. The Reds need a high caliber arm and the deal proposed gets him for essentially spare parts that have no place to play in Cincy. Nobody wants to deal the spare parts (who don't really help the Reds win from AAA) for an immediate impact guy who won't be around long, but if you aren't willing to pull the trigger on a TOR arm with 6 years of control, what would we keep these guys around for? Votto and Mesoraco make two of these guys excess baggage and the third position player would come up and play a similar role, with likely similar offensive and defensive production, as what the team was able to find on the scrap heap by signing Miguel Cairo. I'd like to keep Wood, but the upgrade to a guy like Pineda doesn't really come along all that often.

If not a guy like Pineda then do what with them? Being stacked at AAA isn't exactly the goal here.

The issue is whether or not Pineda is a TOR arm for the future. Plenty of guys have put up similar numbers in their first years and then had less than stellar careers. Eric Bedard had a better resume than Pineda when the M's traded him.

The Reds currently have Cueto, who has just as good of a chance of being that TOR arm as Pineda.

mth123
07-01-2011, 10:24 PM
The issue is whether or not Pineda is a TOR arm for the future. Plenty of guys have put up similar numbers in their first years and then had less than stellar careers. Eric Bedard had a better resume than Pineda when the M's traded him.

The Reds currently have Cueto, who has just as good of a chance of being that TOR arm as Pineda.

Sure he's a rsk. He's a pitcher. Its not like the package proposed is proven.
Name a more likely candidate that the Reds could trade these guys for. Assuming this is even possible (it isn't IMO) the Reds choices would be to deal these guys for Pineda who has probably got that best combination of potential, affordability and years of control theoretically available, something else that likely costs more in salary, can be kept fewer years or has less upside or keep them as spare parts and let them go to waste.

757690
07-01-2011, 11:07 PM
Sure he's a rsk. He's a pitcher. Its not like the package proposed is proven.
Name a more likely candidate that the Reds could trade these guys for. Assuming this is even possible (it isn't IMO) the Reds choices would be to deal these guys for Pineda who has probably got that best combination of potential, affordability and years of control theoretically available, something else that likely costs more in salary, can be kept fewer years or has less upside or keep them as spare parts and let them go to waste.

He's not just a pitcher, he's a rookie pitcher whose only 22.

From 1999 to 2009, 20 young pitchers had breakout rookie years at around Pineda's age, and only 5 of them became #1 starters.

Throw in that he's a flyball pitcher pitching in a very flyball pitcher friendly Safco, and he's even more of a risk.

I would much rather trade less talent and get bonafide #1 rental than use up all the Reds surplus talent on a 1 in 5 chance.

edabbs44
07-02-2011, 07:45 AM
He's not just a pitcher, he's a rookie pitcher whose only 22.

From 1999 to 2009, 20 young pitchers had breakout rookie years at around Pineda's age, and only 5 of them became #1 starters.

Throw in that he's a flyball pitcher pitching in a very flyball pitcher friendly Safco, and he's even more of a risk.

I would much rather trade less talent and get bonafide #1 rental than use up all the Reds surplus talent on a 1 in 5 chance.

Would be interested to see the 20 names, if you could list.